atmosphere

Article
Feasibility of the Inverse-Dispersion Model for
Quantifying Drydock Emissions
Bhaskar Kura * and Abhinay Jilla
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA;
ajilla1@uno.edu
* Correspondence: bkura@uno.edu




Received: 13 May 2019; Accepted: 12 June 2019; Published: 17 June 2019


Abstract: Important processes within the shipbuilding and ship repair industry include metal cutting,
welding, surface preparation, and painting. When dealing with ship repair, ships are brought into
drydocks to carry out necessary repairs. Typical repairs include but are not limited to dry or wet
abrasive blasting for removing the old paint and rust followed by repainting of the external hull.
Also, the painting of superstructure is carried out as necessary. Additionally, many metal cutting and
welding operations are carried out. Air pollutant emissions generated from repair operations carried
out within drydock are challenging to quantify, particularly if some of these repair activities do not
have reliable emission factors. This paper investigates the feasibility of the inverse dispersion model
for quantifying drydock emissions in a shipyard environment. The authors use a well-established
Gaussian dispersion model that is used as a regulatory model in the United States and many
other countries in a two-step process using a code developed in MATLAB: (1) Source-to-Receptor
modeling to compute ambient concentrations using assumed emissions from various sources and
meteorological conditions, and (2) The utilization of the computed ambient concentrations at various
receptors to compute emissions at those sources (assumed in the first step) using the inverse Gaussian
code developed.

Keywords: drydock; shipbuilding; inverse dispersion; emissions

1. Introduction
According to the 2015 United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), there are 124 shipyards
in the United States that actively engage in shipbuilding and more than 200 shipyards that only engage
in ship repairs are capable of building ships (but not actively engaged in shipbuilding). In 2013,
the U.S. private shipbuilding and repairing industry created 399,420 jobs, $25.1 billion of labor income,
and $37.3 billion in the gross domestic product (GDP) [1]. The shipbuilding industry can be divided
into two categories: shipbuilding facilities and ship repair facilities [2]. The shipbuilding facilities are
where shipbuilders concentrate on constructing new vessels. The ship repair facilities concentrate
on repair and maintenance activities and can be further subdivided into topside repair yards and
full-service repair yards. Topside repair yards are restricted to performing repairs above the waterline
of the vessel, whereas dry-docking facilities or full-service repair yards, allow repairs and maintenance
even below a ship’s water line.

1.1. Processes at a Shipbuilding and Repair Industry

The shipbuilding and repair industry consists of several processes that include but are not
limited to surface preparation, metal cutting and surface finishing/treatment, painting and coating,
machine shop operations, welding, and fiberglass operations [3,4]. Processes in the shipbuilding and
repair industry are complex and of a large scale, and these activities produce significant amounts of

Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328; doi:10.3390/atmos10060328 www.mdpi.com/journal/atmosphere

Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 2 of 15

multimedia emissions (solid, liquid, and air) [5]. Various production processes in the shipbuilding
and repair industry consume a large amount of raw materials and generate significant amounts of
waste materials and emissions. The raw materials used in the shipbuilding industry are steel and
other metals, abrasives, paints, solvents, solvent degreasers, acid and alkaline cleaners, etc. [6]. All the
processes in the industry generate waste such as leftover raw material and containers with residual
raw materials. Other wastes generated are organic paint sludges, heavy metals, stripping chemicals,
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, paints, thinners, degreasers, solvents, resins, and others.
Among the air pollutants, metal-ion bearing mists (including hexavalent chromium, cadmium, arsenic,
lead, nickel, and zinc), acid mists, acetone, xylene, and toluene are the most prominent pollutants at
the shipbuilding and repair industry [7]. Many researchers have focused on air pollutant emissions
from various processes at shipyards. Kura et al. (1999) investigated air emissions (heavy metals) from
the oxyfuel cutting of steel plate ship structures [8]. Kura et al. (2000) studied hazardous air pollutant
emissions from shipyard cutting operations [9]. Celebi et al. (2017) investigated air pollutant emissions
from the manual metal arc welding of shipbuilding steel [10]. Mert and Ekinci (2017) studied the
fume formation rate analysis of shipbuilding steel with shielded metal arc welding [11]. Celebi and
Vardar (2008) investigated VOC emissions from indoor and outdoor painting processes in shipyards [6].
Kura et al. (2006) investigated atmospheric particulate emissions from dry abrasive blasting [12].
Out of all the air pollutant emissions from the industry, 98 percent are released into the air from
fugitive or point sources. VOCs accounted for about 86 percent of the shipbuilding and repair industry’s
reported toxic release inventory (TRI) releases [13]. In 2005, the criteria air pollutants (CAPs) from the
shipbuilding and repair industry in the United States amounted to 5900 tons, and all TRI hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions amounted to 0.8 million pounds (0.36 million kgs) [14]. The workers are
exposed to various VOCs and airborne metal fumes (e.g., nickel, zinc, and more) during processes
such as painting, welding, and blasting and are prone to acute and chronic health problems [2].

1.2. Regulations for Air Pollutants in the Shipbuilding and Repair Industry
An emissions factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant
released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. These factors
are usually expressed as the weight of the pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume, distance,
or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant (e.g., kilograms of particulate emitted per megagram
of coal burned) [15].
Under Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) is required to develop national emission standards for 189 hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). The USEPA is developing maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards for all new and existing sources. The National Emission Standards for Shipbuilding and
Repair Operations (Surface Coating) were finalized in 1995 and apply to major source shipbuilding
and ship repairing facilities that carry out surface coating operations [13].

1.3. Importance of Research

Although USEPA does define limits to the amount of air pollutant emissions from all the point
and fugitive sources at the ship repair industries, to accurately quantify emissions from a drydock is a
big challenge for all. The reason drydock emissions are difficult to quantify because a drydock is large
in the area which is used to carry out various repair/maintenance activities such as welding, cutting,
painting and solvent degreasing. Drydocks allow shipyards to carry out ship repair and construction
activities. These activities release criteria and hazardous air pollutants. However, these air pollutants
are not easy to monitor and quantify due to the complexity of repair and construction operations.
The purpose of this paper is to check the feasibility of the inverse dispersion model [16–23] for
quantifying the emissions from Drydocks. The following sections discuss the model in more detail.
This model will not only help the industry identify the actual emissions from drydocks but also help
them comply with regulations. Another concept of Equivalent Source is introduced in this article.
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 3 of 15

According to this experimental study, any area source can be represented by a single “equivalent
source” instead of having several sources to represent the area source such as a drydock in this case.

2. Methodology

2.1. Gaussian Dispersion Model

The Gaussian dispersion model has been the basis of many air quality models used for air quality
permitting, compliance evaluation, and health impact assessments. The USEPA regulatory models such
as ISCST3 [24], AERMOD [25] principally use the basic concept of the Gaussian dispersion equation
with many advanced features/modifications to compute the ambient concentrations resulting from
an emitting source. The Gaussian dispersion model used to compute the ambient concentration of a
pollutant at a receptor downwind from a point source is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Gaussian dispersion model [26].

The ambient concentration (µg/m3) of a pollutant at a receptor downwind from a point source is
calculated using the following equation [26]. The equation is well known as the “Gaussian Dispersion
Equation.”
!  
2
 
2 
Q 1 y2 
  ( z − He ) 

  ( z + He ) 

 
C = exp − exp− + exp − , (1)
  
2πuσy σz 2 σy 2 2 2
   

 
 2σz 
 
 2σz 



where
C = Concentration at a receptor (x, y, z) distance from a point source (µg/m3 ),
Q = Emission rate (µg/s),
σy and σz = Horizontal and vertical dispersion parameters (m) that are functions of the downwind
distance (x) and atmospheric stability,
u = Average wind speed at the physical stack height (m/s),
y = Crosswind distance from ground level (m),
z = Vertical distance above the ground (m), and
He = Effective stack height (physical stack height plus plume rise) (m).
For most modeling scenarios, the emission rate is determined either through source monitoring or
using reliable emission factors. Emission rate, meteorological parameters, and other input parameters
are used to compute the ambient concentrations at various receptors from an emitting source using the
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 4 of 15

Gaussian dispersion equation. The determination of the emission rate is challenging for a drydock as
it does not have a defined source location. The drydocks are more like an area source, where source
monitoring will not provide accurate results since the sources are not defined. This paper attempts
to develop a model to compute the emission rate(s) from drydocks using the monitored ambient
concentrations using the inverse dispersion model.
Usually, in the case of shipyards, air pollutant emission rates (Qs ) from drydocks are unknown
due to a lack of reliable emission factors for many repair activities carried out in drydocks. Shipyards,
however, do have several shops such as blasting houses, welding shops, metal cutting shops,
and paint booths which have stacks attached to which the air pollutant emissions can be quantified.
The quantification of air pollutant emissions (Qs ) for these shops/operations is either carried out by (a)
source monitoring (stack testing) and/or (b) application of reliable emission factors.

2.2. Inverse Gaussian Dispersion Model

Figueroa et al. (2008) successfully demonstrated the Inverse Gaussian Dispersion Model that
uses the concentrations calculated or measured in the downwind direction of a source to calculate the
emission rates from unknown sources in a landfill case study [17]. The Gaussian equation discussed
previously can be described as a single function linking C and Q. This relationship between C and Q is
a function of x (source-to-receptor downwind distance), and y (source-to-receptor crosswind distance)
as all the variables in the function are dependent on x and y.
!  
2
 
2 
1 1 y2 
  ( z − He ) 

  (z + He ) 

 
F = exp − exp− + exp− , (2)
  
2πuσy σz 2 σy 2 2 2
  

 
 2σz 
 
 2σz 



Assuming ground level receptors (z = 0), Equation (2) reduces to Equation (3) as shown below

 (He )2 
 
y2
!
1
F = exp − exp−
 , (3)
πuσy σz 2σy 2 2σ2z


Since F is a function of x and y, it can be written as f(x,y)r,s . Hence, the concentration can be
re-written as
Cr,s = f(x,y)r,s × Qs , (4)

where
Cr,s = Concentration on the receptor “r” due to source “s”,
f(x,y)r,s = Function f(x,y) calculated for source “s” affecting receptor “r”, and
Qs = Emissions from source “s”.
In order to demonstrate the inverse dispersion model, let us assume C is a 3 × 1, F is a 3 × 2, and Q
is a 2 × 1 matrix as follows
   
 Cr1   a11 a12  " #
    Qs1
C =  Cr2  F =  a21 a22  Q=
    Qs2
Cr3 a31 a32
where
Cr1 = Concentration measured/modeled at receptor 1
ars = Effect of source “s” on the receptor “r,” calculated by the function “F.”
Qs1 = Emissions due to source 1
As discussed earlier, generally the concentrations are calculated using the known emission rates
Q and the function F. In the inverse dispersion model, in order to compute the emission rates Q with
known concentrations C, the following relationship can be used by inverting the function f(x,y):

Qs = F∗ Cmeasured , (5)
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 5 of 15

where F* is the inverse of the function f(x,y). Since F is not a square matrix, we perform the following
to invert it.  −1
F∗ = FT F FT , (6)

where
" #
a11 a12 a13
FT =
a21 a22 a23
" #

T
−1 b11 b12
F F =
b21 b22
" #" #
 −1 b11 b12 a11 a12 a13
F F FT =
T
b21 b22 a21 a22 a23
" #
∗ F11 F12 F13
F =
F21 F22 F23
Finally, the emission rate Q is computed using F* and the measured concentrations C as shown in
Equation (7).
" #
Qs1 = Cr1 F11 + Cr2 F12 + Cr3 F13
Qs = , (7)
Qs2 = Cr1 F21 + Cr2 F22 + Cr3 F23

2.3. Best Shipyard Case

The Best Shipyard is a hypothetical concept created by the Maritime Environmental Resources
and Information Center (MERIC) at the University of New Orleans (UNO) for educational purposes to
demonstrate various shipyard processes and multimedia emissions to the students and environmental
engineers/professionals, and to develop software applications. This was helpful in communicating
among environmental engineering and software developers. For demonstrating the inverse dispersion
model in this paper, the same hypothetical shipyard, “the Best Shipyard” was used with a layout as
shown in Figure 2. This Best Shipyard has three drydocks (unknown emission rates, Qs ) and seven
other stack sources (known emission rates, Qs ).

Figure 2. The best shipyard–A hypothetical layout for demonstration.

Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 6 of 15

2.4. Inverse Dispersion Model for Drydocks

To evaluate the feasibility of the inverse dispersion model for drydocks, the authors in this research
consider two approaches as follows (a) assuming one equivalent point source in each drydock and (b)
assuming nine point sources in each drydock, considering it as an area source. The model involved in
demonstrating the inverse dispersion model to drydock scenario can be described in six (6) distinct steps
mentioned in the following section. For this exercise, the emission rates from all the sources in the shipyard
(sources include the drydocks and other stack sources) are assumed as depicted in Table 1. For the purpose
of this paper and the intended demonstration, the “actual” emissions from the ten point sources were
assumed as shown in Table 1. Sources S1–S3 are the drydocks and S4–S10 are the stack sources.

Table 1. Emissions assumed for each source.

x-cord y-cord Height (H) Actual Emissions

Source
(in m) (in m) (in m) (in µg/s)
S1 50 100 0 7000
S2 50 150 0 7520
S3 50 300 0 8540
S4 80 40 10 7480
S5 80 340 10 9400
S6 160 120 10 12000
S7 160 280 10 1359
S8 180 380 10 16000
S9 210 100 10 18800
S10 320 160 10 1585

A grid was laid over the Best Shipyard layout as depicted in Figure 3 with the triangular markers
showing the source locations emitting air pollutants (three drydock sources and seven stack sources)
and the circular markers represent the receptor locations where the concentrations are monitored.
The receptor points are the points where the air pollutant concentrations can be either measured using
an air quality monitor or modeled using air quality models such as atmospheric dispersion models.
In this paper, modeled values at the receptors are being used but in the actual case, one must use
measured/monitored air pollutant concentrations which can be achieved by either grab sampling
method or real-time monitoring.

Figure 3. The Best Shipyard case with the grid superimposed in MATLAB. The triangles and circles
depict sources and receptors respectively.
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 7 of 15

To use the Gaussian dispersion equation, the required meteorological conditions used/ assumed
are as follows:
Wind Speed: 5 m/sec
Wind Direction (degree): 270 (wind blowing from West to East)
Pasquill (Atmospheric) Stability Class: C.
The six steps in discussing the model are as follows:

2.4.1. Step 1: Ten (10) Point Sources with Known Emission Rates (Qs ) to Calculate Concentrations (Cs )
at Seventy (70) Receptors
The ambient concentrations resulting from known emissions from the ten sources were calculated
at all 70 receptor locations. The concentrations were calculated using the Gaussian dispersion model
as depicted by Equation (1). The coordinates (x and y) were computed using the source and receptor
grids and are shown in Table 1 (source co-ordinates) and Table 2 (receptor co-ordinates). The drydock
emission height was considered to be “0 meters” as it is believed that the most emissions from drydocks
are emitted ground level. The emission height for all seven other point sources (stack sources) was
considered to be “10 meters” as all the sources are connected to a stack to spew the emissions. Since
there are 70 receptors and ten sources, there will be 700 (70 × 10) calculations. The MATLAB program
was used to compute the pollutant concentration in ambient air at seventy (70) receptors as shown in
Table 2.

Table 2. Receptor locations and concentrations as calculated in Step 1.

Concentration Concentration
Receptor x-Coord y-coord Receptor x-Coord y-Coord
(µg/m3 ) (µg/m3 )
R1 100 0 0 R36 250 250 0.207
R2 100 50 0 R37 250 300 1.798
R3 100 100 15.667 R38 250 350 1.256
R4 100 150 16.830 R39 250 400 0.098
R5 100 200 0 R40 250 450 0
R6 100 250 0 R41 300 0 0.253
R7 100 300 19.113 R42 300 50 0.926
R8 100 350 0 R43 300 100 3.685
R9 100 400 0 R44 300 150 1.531
R10 100 450 0 R45 300 200 0.240
R11 150 0 0 R46 300 250 0.315
R12 150 50 0.179 R47 300 300 1.457
R13 150 100 4.488 R48 300 350 1.474
R14 150 150 4.820 R49 300 400 0.987
R15 150 200 0.004 R50 300 450 0
R16 150 250 0.005 R51 350 0 0.288
R17 150 300 5.470 R52 350 50 0.876
R18 150 350 0.225 R53 350 100 4.431
R19 150 400 0 R54 350 150 1.561
R20 150 450 0 R55 350 200 0.276
R21 200 0 0.036 R56 350 250 0.376
R22 200 50 0.851 R57 350 300 1.211
R23 200 100 2.232 R58 350 350 1.736
R24 200 150 2.386 R59 350 400 1.433
R25 200 200 0.075 R60 350 450 0.012
R26 200 250 0.085 R61 400 0 0.293
R27 200 300 2.677 R62 400 50 0.990
R28 200 350 1.067 R63 400 100 3.877
R29 200 400 0.001 R64 400 150 1.672
R30 200 450 0 R65 400 200 0.315
R31 250 0 0.161 R66 400 250 0.400
R32 250 50 1.001 R67 400 300 1.026
R33 250 100 1.755 R68 400 350 1.716
R34 250 150 1.592 R69 400 400 1.419
R35 250 200 0.178 R70 400 450 0.063
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 8 of 15

The source locations (three drydocks and seven stack sources) along with receptor (70) locations
as depicted using MATLAB is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Grid showing ten Sources and 70 receptors as generated in MATLAB.

2.4.2. Step 2: Step 2: Known Cs at 70 Receptors to Calculate Three Unknown Drydock Qs

In a real-world scenario, the concentrations are known using monitoring instruments of a different
kind, depending on the type of pollutant at hand. Once these measured/monitored concentrations at
various locations (receptors) are known, one has to identify the possible sources and then use the inverse
dispersion model [17] to back-calculate the emission rates for these identified sources. In this paper,
the calculated ambient concentrations in Step 1 will be treated as measured concentrations from this
point. In Step 2, the demonstration of reverse calculation is implemented by treating the three drydock
sources as unknown sources, while emissions from the stack sources are known. The concentrations
from Table 2 were used to implement the inverse dispersion model to compute the emission rates from
the three drydocks. Again, MATLAB was used to compute the unknown emission rates, which are
shown in Table 3. These “computed” emission rates were compared with “actual” emission rates from
Table 1 as can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of assumed and calculated emission rates in Step 2.

Actual Calculated
x-Coord y-Coord Height (H) Difference
Source Emissions Emissions
(in m) (in m) (in m) (in µg/s)
(in µg/s) (in µg/s)
S1 50 100 0 7000 7000.011 −0.011
S2 50 150 0 7520 7520.015 −0.015
S3 50 300 0 8540 8539.986 0.014
S4 80 40 10 7480 7480.286 −0.286
S5 80 340 10 9400 9400.021 −0.021
S6 160 120 10 12,000 11,999.891 0.109
S7 160 280 10 1359 1358.995 0.005
S8 180 380 10 16,000 16,000.189 −0.189
S9 210 100 10 18,800 18,800.081 −0.081
S10 320 160 10 1585 1584.605 0.396
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 9 of 15

2.4.3. Step 3: Using only the Three Drydocks as the Sources with Known Emission Rates (Qs )
to Calculate Cr, DS at 70 Receptors
In Step 3, three drydocks with emission rates (Qs ) calculated in Step 2 were used to compute
the ambient concentrations at the seventy receptors using the direct Gaussian dispersion model.
The purpose was to see whether the concentrations at these 70 receptors will change with a change in
the number and location of sources within the facility. These computed concentrations are depicted in
Table 4. The term Cr, DS is used to explain that the concentration is calculated for the receptor ‘r’ which
is caused due to the drydock sources ‘DS.’ The results of this exercise are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Concentrations at all 70 receptors due to the three drydocks alone, as calculated in Step 3.

Measured Measured Measured Measured

Receptor Concentration Receptor Concentration Receptor Concentration Receptor Concentration
(in µg/m3 ) (in µg/m3 ) (in µg/m3 ) (in µg/m3 )
R1 0 R19 0 R37 1.565 R55 0.271
R2 0 R20 0 R38 0.201 R56 0.291
R3 15.667 R21 0 R39 0 R57 0.753
R4 16.830 R22 0.070 R40 0 R58 0.278
R5 0 R23 2.231 R41 0.004 R59 0.014
R6 0 R24 2.386 R42 0.220 R60 0
R7 19.113 R25 0.075 R43 1.090 R61 0.023
R8 0 R26 0.085 R44 1.138 R62 0.244
R9 0 R27 2.631 R45 0.240 R63 0.703
R10 0 R28 0.085 R46 0.267 R64 0.722
R11 0 R29 0 R47 1.046 R65 0.287
R12 0.004 R30 0 R48 0.264 R66 0.293
R13 4.488 R31 0 R49 0.004 R67 0.571
R14 4.820 R32 0.165 R50 0 R68 0.268
R15 0.004 R33 1.460 R51 0.012 R69 0.028
R16 0.005 R34 1.543 R52 0.241 R70 0.001
R17 5.470 R35 0.178 R53 0.862
R18 0.005 R36 0.201 R54 0.891

2.4.4. Step 4: Seventy Receptors with Known Cr, DS to Compute Qs from Nine Sources in Each of Three
Drydocks (Total of 27 Sources in 3 Drydocks)
The second aspect of the research is considering each drydock as an area source. As mentioned
earlier, there is no one particular emission source for a drydock. Often, repair work is carried out at
many locations in the drydock, and the actual emissions take place from multiple locations within a
drydock. In order to simulate this situation, a total of twenty-seven (27) point sources were considered
with nine (9) sources in each of the three (3) drydocks. Figure 5 shows the distribution of sources
in each drydock. The pollutant concentrations in ambient air available from Step 3 were used in
combination with the inverse dispersion model to compute the unknown Qs at twenty-seven (27)
sources. Emission rates obtained from this exercise are depicted in Table 5. The reason for this exercise
is to see the difference in total emissions from each drydock between the two alternatives considered,
(a) one source in each drydock and (b) nine sources in each drydock.
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 10 of 15

Figure 5. (a) One source in each of the three drydocks vs. (b) nine sources in each of the three drydocks.

Table 5. Emission rates calculated in Step 4 for drydocks as an area source with nine source locations at
each drydock.

Calculated Calculated Calculated

x-Cord y-Cord x-Cord y-Cord x-Cord y-Cord
Source Emission Source Emission Source Emission
(in m) (in m) (in m) (in m) (in m) (in m)
(µg/s) (µg/s) (µg/s)
S11 30 110 0 S21 30 160 0 S31 30 310 0
S12 30 100 0 S22 30 150 0.158 S32 30 300 0
S13 30 90 0 S23 30 140 0 S33 30 290 0
S14 50 110 0 S24 50 160 0 S34 50 310 0.098
S15 50 100 6997.936 S25 50 150 7519.638 S35 50 300 8538.738
S16 50 90 0.204 S26 50 140 0.294 S36 50 290 0.081
S17 70 110 0 S27 70 160 0 S37 70 310 0.128
S18 70 100 0.720 S28 70 150 0.069 S38 70 300 0.429
S19 70 90 0.860 S29 70 140 0 S39 70 290 0.353
S1 TOTAL 6999.729 S2 TOTAL 7520.159 S3 TOTAL 8539.827

2.4.5. Step 5: Known Qs at 27 Sources (3 Drydocks) to Compute Cs at 30 New Receptors

In Step 5, all 27 sources within three drydocks were considered, and ambient concentrations
were computed using the Gaussian equation (MATLAB code) at 30 receptors as shown in Figure 6
(new receptor grid; different from the previous 70 receptor grid). All other parameters such as wind
speed and stability class were kept the same. The purpose is to see how the concentrations at these
30 receptors will change from (a) total of 3 sources, one source in each of three drydocks to (b) total
of 27 sources, nine sources in each of the three drydocks. Source-receptor geometry is illustrated in
Figure 6. The computed concentrations are shown in Table 6. This demonstration will help study the
health impacts of the facility at various receptor locations that are of interest.
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 11 of 15

Figure 6. Source-receptor geometry for nine sources at each drydock and a total of 27 sources at
the facility.

Table 6. Comparison of calculated ambient concentrations.

Concentration Concentration
Concentration Using Concentration Using
Using Single Using Single
Receptor Nine Sources in Each Difference Receptor Nine Sources in Each Difference
Equivalent Equivalent
Drydock (in µg/m3 ) Drydock (in µg/m3 )
Source (in µg/m3 ) Source (in µg/m3 )
R1 0.915 0.915 0 R16 5.470 5.470 0
R2 2.386 2.386 0 R17 0 0 0
R3 0.003 0.003 0 R18 0.003 0.003 0
R4 2.631 2.631 0 R19 0.044 0.044 0
R5 0.724 0.724 0 R20 0.118 0.118 0
R6 1.352 1.352 0 R21 0 0 0
R7 0.055 0.055 0 R22 0.036 0.036 0
R8 1.318 1.318 0 R23 0 0 0
R9 0.520 0.520 0 R24 0.100 0.100 0
R10 0.817 0.817 0 R25 0 0 0
R11 0.177 0.177 0 R26 0.420 0.420 0
R12 0.670 0.670 0 R27 0.599 0.599 0
R13 0.761 0.761 0 R28 0.233 0.233 0
R14 4.820 4.820 0 R29 0.450 0.450 0
R15 0 0 0 R30 0.002 0.002 0

2.4.6. Step 6: Known Qs at 3 Sources (3 Drydocks) to Compute Cs at 30 New Receptors

Now knowing the concentrations at the 30 receptors, the concept of the equivalent source is
implemented using the same set of 30 receptors by combining the nine sources at each drydock to
consider the drydock as a single source. Step 6 is the same as Step 5 except that only three sources (one
source in each drydock) were considered for computing the concentration in ambient air at 30 newly
selected receptors. The results are shown in Table 7, and the source-receptor geometry is illustrated
in Figure 7. This step shows that the concept of the equivalent source can be implemented since
the drydock can be considered as one source. As seen in Table 6, the error margin between the two
scenarios (considering drydocks as a point source and area source) is of the magnitude 10−4 .
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 12 of 15

Table 7. Comparison of total emissions at each drydock (single equivalent source vs. nine sources in
each drydock).

Emissions (µg/s) Emissions (µg/s)

Drydock Number (Single Equivalent Source in (Nine Sources in Difference
Each Drydock) Each Drydock)
1 7000.011 6999.719 0.292
2 7520.015 7520.159 −0.145
3 8539.986 8539.827 0.159

Figure 7. New source-receptor grid with the three drydocks.

3. Results and Discussion

Step 1 provided the results of the ambient pollutant concentration at 70 receptors, which are
shown in Table 2. These ambient concentrations are computed using a simple Gaussian dispersion
method described by Equation (1).
Step 2 utilizes the inverse Gaussian model proposed by Figueroa et al. (2008). This step used the
ambient concentrations computed (in this case result of Step 1; field measured ambient concentrations
can be used in actual applications) to compute emission rates. The results are obtained using the
MATLAB code utilizing Equation (3)–(5). Here, 7 out of the ten sources considered have known
emission rates since they are stack (point) sources and can be measured easily. The three drydocks are
considered as unknown sources, and the emissions are computed using this inverse dispersion model
described in this paper. The results of modeled Qs for the three unknown drydock sources are shown
in Table 3. From Step 2, it can be seen that the modeled results are the same as the actual emission rates
(in this case, the assumed emission rates which were used in Step 1). Thus, this model proves to be
very promising. Here, the actual ambient concentrations were unknown; the ambient concentrations at
various receptors are calculated in Step 1. In the field, however, the concentrations will be measured
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 13 of 15

using a simple hand-held instrument and carry on with Step 2 to compute the emission rate which
is unknown.
Step 3 provided the results of the modeled concentrations (Cr, DS ) at receptor “r” due to source
“s” at 70 receptors from only three sources (one in each drydock). The results of this step are shown
in Table 4. The concentration at each receptor is the sum of effect due to all the three sources at
that receptor.
In Step 4, the authors provided the results of the emission rates (Qs ) at 27 sources (nine sources in
each drydock) that were calculated using the ambient concentrations at 70 receptors. These results are
presented in Table 5.
Steps 5 and 6 resulted in modeled ambient concentrations at 30 new receptors as a result of
emissions from 27 sources located in three drydocks (nine sources in each drydock) and emissions
from three sources located in three drydocks (one source in each drydock) which are given in Table 6.
The concept of “equivalent source” is proved in Step 4–7. The comparison shown in Table 7
proves that treating the drydock as a single point source gives comparable results with the case when
the drydock is considered to have nine source locations throughout the area of the drydock as shown
in Figure 5. However, caution should be used in extrapolating this approach and should be used for
situations that are tested through additional validation.
The inverse dispersion model was evaluated for quantifying drydock emissions. This model is
scalable and can be applied to quantify emissions from animal farms, landfills, wastewater treatment
plants, forest fires and so on.
The paper mainly provided a novel method of using the Gaussian dispersion model in a reverse
way to solve complex emission inventory problems that exist in the maritime industry. The authors
believe that this model has significant benefits as stated below:

• The proposed model uses the proven scientific method of the Gaussian Dispersion Model, which is
used by the USEPA as a regulatory model. Many countries around the World use the same model
for regulatory compliance and approving air permits. The model’s limitations are well recognized,
and efforts are constantly being made to improve the assumptions and algorithm. For now, the
model is being used “as-is” for regulatory and litigation purposes.
• The quantification of drydock emissions is complex due to the type of operations and their
variations from shipyard to shipyard. Thus, the use of emission factors available from the USEPA’s
AP-42 is insufficient. There is no better method to estimate emissions from drydocks unless this
area is enclosed, and source testing is conducted for each situation.
• The inverse dispersion model proposed is relatively easier to use/implement as the
Gaussian Dispersion Model is already being used for regulatory purposes and is also less
resource demanding.
• The lack of a rational emission quantification method will continue to result in erroneous emission
estimates, thus erroneous risk assessments.
• The proposed model can be easily applied to other complex emission sources such as landfills,
superfund sites, raw material yards, large mine sites, forest fires, wastewater treatment plants and
many more.

4. Conclusions
This paper demonstrates the feasibility of the inverse dispersion model for quantifying emissions
from drydocks that are not easily quantifiable. The results prove that this model is reliable in estimating
the emission rates from sources that are not quantifiable through source monitoring methods and those
that do not have reliable emission factors. The same model can be applied to quantify emission rates
from landfills, animal farms, and wastewater treatment plants where the reliable emission factors are
absent. Emission quantification from these sources can help various sources comply with regulations,
perform impact analysis, and conduct health risk assessments in the nearby community. In most
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 14 of 15

countries, it is a big challenge for any governmental agency to quantify the actual emissions from forest
fires. By implementing the inverse dispersion model, it will be easier to quantify the emissions from
forest fires, and this can help agencies in reporting the emissions to develop emission control strategies
and health risk assessments. However, the authors caution the use of the proposed inverse dispersion
model as this method relies on the applicability of the Gaussian dispersion model. Whenever and
wherever the Gaussian dispersion model cannot be utilized, the proposed inverse model will have the
same limitations.

Author Contributions: B.K. conceived the idea, designed the study outline, and guided A.J.; A.J. performed the
literature review, developed the MATLAB code, and drafted the paper.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the Maritime Environmental Resources and
Information Center (MERIC), University of New Orleans for the research support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Maritime Administration (MARAD). The Economic Importance of the U.S. Shipbuilding and Repairing
Industry. Available online: https://www.maritime.dot.gov/sites/marad.dot.gov/files/docs/resources/3641/
maradeconstudyfinalreport2015.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2019).
2. Dincer, I.; Midilli, A.; Hepbasli, A.; Karakoc, T.H. (Eds.) Global Warming Engineering Solutions Series: Green
Energy and Technology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 579–590.
3. Celebi, U.B.; Ekinci, S.; Alarcin, F.; Unsalan, D. The Risk of occupational safety and health in shipbuilding
industry in Turkey. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and
Engineering, Constantza, Romania, 3–5 September 2010.
4. Papaioannou, D. Environmental implications related to the shipbuilding and ship repairing activity in Greece.
J. Marit. Transp. Sci. 2003, 41, 241–252.
5. Kura, B.; Lacoste, S.; Patibanda, P. Multimedia pollutant emissions from shipbuilding facilities. In Proceedings
of the United States and Japan Natural Resources (UJNR) Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 25 October–4
November 1998.
6. Celebi, U.B.; Vardar, N. Investigation of VOC Emissions from Indoor and Outdoor Painting Processes in
Shipyards. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 5685–5695. [CrossRef]
7. Kura, B. Multi-media pollutants in the shipbuilding industry and the importance of environmental
management. In Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on Naval Architecture and Maritime, Yildiz
Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 24–25 October 2011.
8. Kura, B.; Wisbith, A.S.; Stone, R.; Judy, T. Metal Cutting Operations: Emission Factors for Particulates, Metals
and Metal Ions. In Proceedings of the Emission Inventory: Regional Strategies for the Future Proceedings,
Raleigh, NC, USA, 26–28 October 1999; pp. 1–13.
9. Kura, B.; Judy, T.; Wisbith, S.A.; Stone, R. Assessment of air emissions from shipyard cutting processes.
In Proceedings of the United States Japan Natural Resources (UJNR) Conference, Tokyo, Japan,
17–18 May 2000; pp. 1–18.
10. Celebi, U.B.; Mert, T.; Bilgili, L.; Senoz, K.M.; Ekinci, S. Characterization of sub-micrometer fume particles
in MMA welding of shipbuilding steel with different types of electrodes. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2017,
26, 140–145.
11. Mert, T.; Ekinci, S. Fume formation rate analysis of shipbuilding steel with SMAW using Taguchi design and
ANOVA. Acta Phys. Pol. A. 2017, 13, 495–499. [CrossRef]
12. Kura, B.; Kambham, K.; Sangameswaran, S.; Potana, S. Atmospheric particulate emissions from dry abrasive
blasting using coal slag. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2006, 56, 1205–1215. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project: Profile of the Shipbuilding
and Repair Industry; EPA/310-R-97-008; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sector Performance Report. Shipbuilding & Ship Repair. Available
online: https://archive.epa.gov/sectors/web/pdf/shipbuilding.pdf (accessed on 9 May 2019).
Atmosphere 2019, 10, 328 15 of 15

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web Site. Emissions Factors
& AP 42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/
(accessed on 9 May 2019).
16. Flesch, T.K.; Wilson, J.D.; Harper, L.A.; Crenna, B.P. Estimating gas emissions from a farm with an
inverse-dispersion technique. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 4863–4874. [CrossRef]
17. Figueroa, V.K.; Cooper, C.D.; Mackie, K.R. Estimating landfill greenhouse gas emissions from measured
ambient methane concentrations and dispersion modeling. In Proceedings of the 101st Air and Waste
Management Association Annual Conference and Exhibition, Portland, OR, USA, 24–27 June 2008.
18. Faulkner, W.B.; Goodrich, L.B.; Botlaguduru, V.S.V.; Capareda, S.C.; Parnell, C.B. Particulate matter emission
factors for almond harvest as a function of harvester speed. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2009, 59, 943–949.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Figueroa, V.K.; Mackie, K.R.; Guarriello, N.; Cooper, C.D. A robust method for estimating landfill methane
emissions. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2009, 59, 925–935. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Flesch, T.K.; Harper, L.A.; Desjardins, R.L.; Gao, Z.; Crenna, B.P. Multi-source emission determination using
an inverse-dispersion technique. Bound. Layer Meteorol. 2009, 132, 11–30. [CrossRef]
21. Lushi, E.; Stockie, J.M. An inverse Gaussian plume approach for estimating atmospheric pollutant emissions
from multiple point sources. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 1097–1107. [CrossRef]
22. Schauberger, G.; Piringer, M.; Knauder, W.; Petz, E. Odour emissions from a waste treatment plant using an
inverse dispersion technique. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 1639–1647. [CrossRef]
23. Bonifacio, H.F.; Maghirang, R.G.; Auvermann, B.W.; Razote, E.B.; Murphy, J.P.; Harner, J.P., III. Particulate
matter emission rates from beef cattle feedlots in Kansas-reverse dispersion modeling. J. Air Waste Manag.
Assoc. 2012, 62, 350–361. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “User’s Guide
for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models. Volume II—Description of Model Algorithms”;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1995.
25. Perry, S.G.; Cimorelli, A.J.; Lee, R.F.; Paine, R.J.; Venkatram, A.; Weil, J.C.; Wilson, R.B. AERMOD: A dispersion
model for industrial source applications. In Proceedings of the 87th Annual Meeting Air and Waste
Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 19–24 June 1994; p. 16.
26. Cooper, C.D.; Alley, F.C. Air Pollution Control, A Design Approach, 4th ed.; Waveland Press: Long Grove, IL,
USA, 2011.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).